Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 8:14:1238251.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1238251. eCollection 2023.

Sequential embryo transfer versus double cleavage-stage embryo or double blastocyst transfer in patients with recurrent implantation failure with frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a cohort study

Jiangman Gao  1   2   3   4 , Yifeng Yuan  1   2   3   4 , Jia Li  1   2   3   4 , Tian Tian  1   2   3   4 , Ying Lian  1   2   3   4 , Ping Liu  1   2   3   4 , Rong Li  1   2   3   4 , Jie Qiao  1   2   3   4 , Xiaoyu Long  1   2   3   4 , Haiyan Wang  1   2   3   4
Affiliations

Sequential embryo transfer versus double cleavage-stage embryo or double blastocyst transfer in patients with recurrent implantation failure with frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a cohort study

Jiangman Gao et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is more common among patients receiving assisted reproductive treatment. Many efforts have been made to increase the incidence of clinical pregnancy among patients with RIF. The effect of the sequential transfer procedure, a two-step interval transfer of a cleavage-stage embryo followed by a blastocyst in one transfer cycle, on the clinical outcomes of RIF patients remains controversial.

Methods: In total, 1774 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles in RIF patients were included. Of these cycles, 302 were sequential embryo transfer (ET) cycles, 979 were double day 3 cleavage-stage ET cycles, and 493 were double blastocyst ET cycles. The primary outcomes were the rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of hCG positive, early miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.

Results: The implantation, hCG positive, and clinical pregnancy rates in the sequential ET group (32.1%, 58.9%, 50.7%) were significantly higher than those in the day 3 cleavage-stage ET group (24.9%, 46.5%, 40.4%) and were similar to those in the blastocyst transfer group (30.1%, 56.4%, 47.1%). The early miscarriage rate in the blastocyst transfer group was significantly higher than that in the cleavage-stage ET group (17.2% vs. 8.1%, P <0.05), while the ectopic pregnancy rate in the blastocyst transfer group was significantly lower than that in the cleavage-stage ET group (0.4% vs. 3.0%, P <0.05). The multiple pregnancy rate in the sequential ET group was significantly lower than that in the cleavage-stage ET group (17.0% vs. 25.5%, P <0.05) and the blastocyst transfer group (17.0% vs. 27.6%, P <0.05). When cycles of blastocyst culture failure were excluded, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher (55.7% vs. 47.1%, P <0.05), and the early miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate were significantly lower (8.5% vs. 17.2%, 17.7% vs. 27.6%; P <0.05, respectively) in the sequential ET group than in the double blastocyst ET group.

Conclusions: Sequential embryo transfer in FET cycles could improve the clinical outcomes of patients with RIF.

Keywords: blastocyst transfer; cleavage-stage embryo transfer; frozen-thawed embryo transfer; repeated implantation failure; sequential embryo transfer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The cycles of different transferred embryos in the sequential ET.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical outcomes of patients in each group. *P<0.05.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of clinical outcomes between successfully completed sequential embryo transfer group (day 3 cleavage-stage embryo transfer followed by a cultured blastocyst transfer) and double blastocyst transfer group. *P<0.05.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fauser BC. Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reprod BioMed Online (2019) 38(2):133–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.12.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mitri F, Nayot D, Casper RF, Bentov Y. Current tools for the optimization of embryo transfer technique for recurrent implantation failure. Minerva Ginecol (2016) 68(4):431–49. - PubMed
    1. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. . ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod (2018) 33(9):1586–601. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey242 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, Liu F, Demirol A, Gurgan T, et al. . Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod BioMed Online (2014) 28(1):14–38. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bashiri A, Halper KI, Orvieto R. Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions. Reprod Biol Endocrinol (2018) 16(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0414-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types